LyrArc Article Gist
Gen. Martin Dempsey took a cautious approach to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Syria. He did not approve of the way Gen. McChrystal expanded U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, and the hasty manner in which the Iraqi army was trained under his predecessors leading to some commanders being appointed who later became members of sectarian death squads. Under his command the U.S. limited its role in Afghanistan and Iraq and handed more responsibility to local forces. Gen. Dunford who succeeded Dempsey as chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff for the U.S. follows the cautious approach set by Dempsey. Dempsey's approach extends to what he believes is an Heisenberg effect in physics where when you you observe or touch something it changes the way it functions and operates. For critics such as Senator McCain, who served in Vietnam as a pilot, if Dempsey did not want to intervene in some country, he could invent the reasons not to get involved. President Obama exceeded the caution exercized by Dempsey, leading to a situation where the U.S. after hasty action under a Republican president seemed to lurch in the opposite direction under his Democratic successor by not taking action where U.S. presence was needed, followed by a corrective course to make up for this....

LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama aadministration Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, actually ran the CIA effort to supply the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Reagan administration.

LyrArc Article Gist
NYT's Thomas Edsall does a great service to America by pulling together different views on the causes of the alienation of the rural population in the US from the Democratic party. The situation in Wisconsin with Ron Johnson winning in that state on the back of resentment of the rural population is shown. It all started say experts with the the so called Third Way that turned out not to exist of Tony Blair in Britain and Bill Clinton in the US that quietly accepted the Reagan view of the world and moved the Democratic party in a different and unknown direction. Obama made things worse by embracing Tech and tech companies into the Democratic party, and ignored the concerns of rural and agricultural parts of the US. The Obama period continued the Clinton policies of letting China takeover America's position in manufacturing, and allowing the offshoring of much of American industry to China. By not closing the chapter of America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq president Obama lost many critical years. Mr. Biden now has the extraordinary challenge of not meekly accepting what has happened knowing that it is not in the spirit of the party of FDR and Truman, that the Democratic party will stand or fall with the common man, that it will take some time to recover from these missteps, that it is in the interests of America and the American people, and for what America stands for in the world. It is all embodied in what Carl Sandburg once wrote- "The People, Yes!" ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Russia has 600 billion dollars in reserves and with oil prices above $100, with the Ukraine conflict lifting oil prices for Russian oil exports, there is little that the US and Europe have done to prepare for this situation. The Merkel years were essentially wasted in building a trade based relationship on cheap Russian gas supplies, and the wasted resources under Bush and Obama in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only distracted the US from the major issues relating to China and Europe that it now faces. 

The need is for a new overall structure to be built- for social structure supporting all aspects of infrastructure, and stronger supply chains with local manufacturing. And international structures that include India and other nations of Asia and Latin America, Africa, that would be a framework for the future- a broader framework for peaceful relations.

 

LyrArc Article Gist
President Trump outlines a plan for Afghanistan that increases the U.S. troop presence from about 8500 with an addition of 4000 more troops and advisors, in addition to a counter terrorism force. To war weary public in the U.S. he says: "I share your frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money- and most importantly, lives- trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations." About his criticism of the war when president Obama was in office as a huge costly waste of resources Trump said: My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like to follow my instincts... I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk at the Oval Office." After resisting the advice of his own advisers Trump decided to fire Bannon who had supported use of American private security contractors for the war in Afghanistan, and used parts of the media to question national security advisor McMaster's views on this. Gen. Mattis, completed a strategy review that showed the mistake of creating a vacuum would repeat the situation of Iraq where president Obama withdrew forces in 2011, leading to a sequence of negative events- with Russia, Iran and Islamic State moving into the vacuum, making American intervention in the war necessary, increase in terrorist incidents worldwide, and a flood of refugees into Europe. Ironically clearing the path for an outsider's bid for the White House, with Brexit in which refugee fears and uncontrolled immigration played a part, and the news of terrorism and the war in Syria-Iraq creating a sense of insecurity. A key difference in the Trump approach with Obama's approach is that "conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables will guide our actions from now on," in line with Trump's criticism of Obama's approach. The military in the U.S. has long maintained that the best approach would have been to insist on U.S. presence in negotiations with the Iraqi government under the sectarian prime minister Nouri Maliki. Gen. Mattis was head of Central Command under the Obama administration and must have pushed the view of the military to president Obama to no avail. Failure to do so led to the growth of Shiite militias and the alienation of Sunnis in Mosul, leading to the fall of Mosul to Islamic State thus creating the current crisis. Gen. Mattis and Lt. Gen McMaster are intimately aware of the problem and must have convinced Trump that this is what really happened, that a repeat would waste the sacrifices of American soldiers in the twin wars. Trump gave this as his reason when he said in his televised speech to the nation- essentially a criticism of Bush that he expanded the conflict too quickly, and Obama exiting too quickly to create a void. Trump call his policy "principled realism."  The roots of the crisis are in the India-Pakistan conflict. Like the conflict in South East Asia the conflict in South Asia extending from Iran to India and Pakistan, may take a generation to overcome. A rapprochement between India and Pakistan, beginning with trade and economic relations, is not only in America's interest, it also provides the basis for a realistic American withdrawal. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Violation of international law or tacit approval of drug states and suppression of the election results in Venezuela- position taken by Oxford's Dill and Germany's Steinmeier is itself controversial. Merz's is realistic. For those concerned about international law is it restricted to any particular period? Then the British policy in China supported by the other powers Japan, Russia, Germany and France to suppress the Boxer rebellion in 1901 and expand Treaty ports that forced opium on China in the period 1850 to the 1930's was not just a egregious violation, horrendous violation of basic human rights on a scale unimaginable in modern times. Much of the prosperity of the Netherlands and Britain, France was achieved through such policy in Asia. Yet Oxford's Dill and Steinmeier have chosen not to look at European history and the Empires of Europe in Asia and Africa for 300 years since 1700. By comparison Venezuelan action comes after the great patience of well meaning people, and the silence of elites in the US and Europe about massive migration encouraged by the regime in Venezuela of one third of its population about 9 million people to neighboring countries including the US, and suppression of free elections, complete mismanagement leading to 150% inflation destroying its economy.  It was not only these elites in the US and Europe that were responsible through their silence, but also the Bush and Obama wars in the Middle East which sapped the resources of the United States. Why is this happening when the Venezuelan people are the main benificiaries of the action taken by the US president to send in its military. All oil sales revenue will no longer go to a corrupt "drugs" state but be used to directly help the Venezuelan people achieve a better standard of living, bring down inflation  and invest in modernization, in these unusual circumstance a program run by Bessent at US Treasury. Those who dislike the unconventional but well meaning style of the US president and his occasional poor choice of words, find every opportunity for criticism even ignoring facts and common sense. Under Chavez and Maduro the Venezuelan economy was simply mismanaged to the point of being destroyed and an affluent country reduced to poverty and inflation so bad that one third or 9 milllion people left for neighboring countries. On this Dill at Oxford and Steinmeier have only this to say- it is somebody's else's problem. we will remain silent. Similarly on introducing nuclear weapons in the Middle East -where most nation states have intermittent wars and economic mismanagement for the last 50 years the artificial states from the Ottoman Empire of Syria and Iraq, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sudan every state impoverished by war and economic mismanagement - Dill at Oxford and Steinmeier in Germany also have only this to say- it is somebody else's problem not ours, we will remain silent. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This Editorial by the Editorial Board of the WSJ says Obama, and Biden are covered by the same immunity that protects DJT under the Supreme COurt decision 6-3 that SC Justice Gorsuch called "a decision for the ages." It says DJT is understandably furious about the rabbit hole of the Steele dossier on collusion.  What started DJT comments on Obama was the publication by WSJ of a story on Mr. Epstein. All this plays into the partisan politics which is getting the nation nowhere when under Biden and now under DJT there is a singular focus in different ways and with different perceptions of need, to rebuild the Nation's industrial base and the living standards of the workers and people of America. Much of it frittered away under the negligent administrations of Republican and Democratic administrations of Obama and Bush with engagement in remote Afghanistan and Iraq foreign wars started under Reagan and the elder Bush during the Cold War, with its spinoff into migration issues that hurt social cohesion in the US and Europe. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Some frank and honest assesments of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan from a career foreign service officer, the British ambassador in Kabul, Afghanistan about the lack of trust, corruption and lack of viability of the Karzai government, as it faces insurgents who he says could make life difficult even in the capital. Both candidates plan an expansion of the Afghanistan war with Obama equally aggressive or more so with targeting of Pakistan from comments in the last debate of McCain and Obama. The ambassador may be warning of the danger of expansion of the war without carefully assessing the situation on the ground like the failure of the Karzai governmet to build trust, corruption, and as reported by the BBC News tv coverage the shipping of arms to insurgents under the tacit permission of corrupt Afghan governmet officials through highways controlled by the Kabul government.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General says he welcomes the conditions only approach outlined by president Trump for the allied role in Afghanistan. This means taking the appropriate action depending on conditions. NATO will move forward with expected commitments of its members as the U.S. counteracts the deteriorating situation there to prevent a vacuum from developing. This happens following the disastrous results of the Obama administration's withdrawal from Iraq in 2011 against the military's opinion, leading to a reversal of all the hard won gains and increase in terrorism, adding millions of refugees. Gen. McMaster and Gen. Mattis who developed the new plans in 2017 were in Afghanistan during that period.

The split between U.S. and other members of NATO in the current effort by the U.S.to increase others contributions is- 7000 U.S. troops and 5000 troops from other NATO members.

LyrArc Article Gist
The comparison by Goldsmith and Moyn has picked the wrong Roosevelt. Only Washington in the war of independence, Lincoln in the Civil War over slavery, and FDR Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the Great Depression and economic collapse, fall in that category and there is no one and nothing to compare with both the struggles they fought and the challenge to the survival of the US. On the next scale comes TR Teddy Roosevelt, and this is the Roosevelt to compare DJT with. TR was unconventional, TR spoke a different language and could be frank and outspoken. TR actions matched his words, as his days on the Indian frontier and with the Rough Riders. TR also had one term plus completing McKinley's term after his assasination. And TR like DJT did not like his successor and did everything to make the comeback denouncing the policies of his successor William Howard Taft in the 1912 election, which TR lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. All this is true for DJT in 2026. TR denounced the shift away from his "progressive policies" and the shift to corporate interests of Republican Taft. In this sense also DJT is similar as he denounced the shift to corporate interests of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama years. TR was no country club Republican and was willing to confront opponents in the politics to fight for the benefit of the working man, splitting the Republican party in the process. This is true of DJT. TR launched the rebuilding of the Navy, and announced he would reassert the Monroe Doctrine. DJT is doing the same and is reasserting the Monroe Doctrine. One could say that DJT feels the hidden TR in him and like Teddy Roosevelt is putting America in the place it once was. For TR the industrial revolution had distorted a country founded on the backs of settlers owning the land independent and rugged, as industry turned the country into corporate interests and workers in factories with few rights, and poor working conditions and wages. This TR even as a Republican fought to reverse. In DJT there is the Republican also of a different mould who fights to reverse the situation created by Bush/Clinton/Bush/ Obama over three decades since the 1990's when America has fallen to new lows when drug trafficking gangs in Mexico and Venezuela are able to run rampant over the western hemisphere, when elites in Canada and the US act impotent in the face of this, or living in their own world away from the streets and neighborhoods of America devastated by drug trafficking, towns and neighborhoods from Janesville to Flint economically deprived as elites shifted manufacturing overseas to China in complete indifference to the American worker and his family, and carried out wars in remote parts of the world such as hills of Afghanistan and deserts of Iraq no worker or farmer in America had even heard of or cared about since the American continent was settled in 1600. If there is a Woodrow Wilson around the corner who won in 1912, for the 2028 election, then it is someone who like Wilson will take policies to benefit the American worker and farmer and his family, and America as a Nation to a better place over the next decade. A passage from Teddy Roosevelt from his Autobiography about who TR was struggling against illustrates this point- "They favored Civil Service Reform; they favored copyright laws, and the removal of tariffs on works of art; they favored all the proper (and even more strongly the improper ) movements for international peace and arbitration; in short, they favored all good and many goody-goody, measures so long as they did not cut deep into social wrong or make demands on National and individual virility. They opposed, or were lukewarm, about efforts to build up the army and the navy, for they were not sensitive regarding National honor, and above all they opposed every non-milk-and-water effort, however sane to change our social and economic system in such a fashion as to substitute the ideal of justice towards all for the ideal of kindly charity from the favored few to the possibly grateful many." (Theodore Roosevelt, Autobiography, Chapter 5 title: Applied Idealism, 1913) ...

LyrArc Article Gist
What does Business in the Republican party think of J.D. Vance?   WSJ says the book "Hillbelly Elegy" is about cultural dysfunction not globalization or economic dislocation. Vance's book is about growing up in Appalachian part of Ohio around 2000. Lyrarc Retrospect shown on this page has a Wash.Post report of Robert Kennedy's visit in 1968 to poverty stricken Appalachian rural America in eastern Kentucky.  Running through Pennsylvania and Ohio to Tennessee. Mostly rural, mountainous low income and lacking roads, highways, and lacking schools, medical clinics. JFK and LBJ as presidents in the 1960's setup the Appalachian Regional Commission to lift it out of poverty. It increased income growth modest 4% above neighboring counties. Bush and Obama wars left this region and rural regions across the US neglected till Biden pulled out of Afghanistan and made rural America a top priority with the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to invest in it. It is as tough to tackle as the poverty in a similar forested and hilly part of eastern India called Orissa and Chattisgarh, which is only now receiving the attention of prime minister Modi in his third term. WSJ says J.D. Vance called mere rhetoric as no answer to such intractable problems in his Yale days, calling mere reference to cultural issues and immigration as forms of cultural heroin that would do little to change the centuries old poverty of the region.  Of the 39 year old senator J.D. Vance migration to MAGA, WSJ says it reminds them of Obama with only 2 years experience in the Senate- Vance has only a little over a year- who with lack of experience contested for the presidency of the US only to find Republicans poking Obama for seeking the presidency with such insignificant experience. This led to one of the least effective presidencies for lack of bipartisan support similar to that of Bush, both distracted by wars neither had the wisdom to not enter in the first place or to end quickly.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Over 50% of Israelis support Iran war, only 30% oppose. As Israelis see it Iran under religious clerics is the only real threat to Israel in 2025 because of Iran's policy of proxies for attacking Israel in Lebanon and in Gaza, and because of it's development of nuclear weapons and openly threatening Israel. The US involvement in Iranian politics dates from the Dulles and Eisenhower era with the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mossadegh in 1953. Working with British intelligence and for British oil interests, US oil interests, the US made a serious mistake as seen from today's perspective. The moral is British or French colonial policy stay from it America- George Washington himself would advise. Israel is paying the price and is asked to correct what was done by the British in Iran since 1850's- to bring back a peaceful democracy with the kind of struggles even Greece experienced. The unelected wholly unrepresentative government of the Shah who was put in the place of a democratically elected government was a serious mistake. The British and French colonialism and oil interests of Britain plus American oil companies have led to US getting on the wrong side of the Vietnamese people in the war in Vietnam against the French that ended at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. It had repercussions in the Vietnam war under Kennedy and Johnson. This has happened in the case of Iran where the US has gained so little and lost so much in lives and resources sunk in the ensuing was in Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Yemen. The European Union suffered from the huge migrant flow from Syria with splits in its ranks. The distractions of these 30 years through Reagan and Rumsfeld who supported Hussein in Iraq against Iran in a balancing act is now foolishness, of elder Bush as he diverted attention to a long desert war in Kuwait, of Bush and then Obama in Afghanistan, who wasted enormous resources and impoverished the American people. Leaving legacy wars for Trump and Biden to handle. After Vietnam another failed chapter of Iran in the US for the American people by incompetent leaders who were taken in by French and British colonial and oil interests in wrong directions.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis comes as a result of Mattis being unable to change plans by president Trump for a withdrawal from both Afghanistan and Syria. WSJ discloses that at a meeting on December 18 at the Pentagon, with John Bolton, White House National Security Advisor, Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, and John Dunford, chairman Jt. Chiefs of Staff, Mattis could not temper the president's plans. On Thursday December 20th Mr. Mattis decided to resign. He then met Mr. Pompeo and onto the White House to meet president Trump. He and Mr. Trump discussed their contrasting world views in a 45 minute meeting, and Mr. Mattis handed over his resignation letter to Mr. Trump. Military officials were particularrly blindsided by the withdrawal from Syria. U.S. policy has vacillated back and forth in the intervention in Syria with president Obama also hesitant to commit troops in Syria. In the meeting Mattis understood that even a minimal presence in Syria was unacceptable to president Trump who ordered the removal of the 2000 troops there. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was also a result of limited patience with the war there in the 18th year and no sign that the Taliban influence had diminished since the war began- after Trump added 3000 troops to the 14,000 stationed in Afghanistan. The U.S. has 5500 troops in Iraq and there is talk about drawing this number down. The concern for the defense department is that how U.S. allies will see the withdrawal, and their perception of how reliable the U.S. is as a partner. For president Trump the cost is measured in terms of the long period the U.S. was engaged in the region without any tangible results, and U.S. not allies bearing most of the cost.      ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This televised debate of Republican presidential candidates focussed on Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. Rick Perry said he would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank, something the Obama administration is reluctant to do because it might disrupt international oil markets. Romney and Gingrich said they would use military action if other measures failed. Huntsman called for a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, saying: "This nation's future is not in Afghanistan. this nation's future is not in Iraq." Ron Paul said hw opposed military interventions in conflicts overseas. Perry and Gingrich said U.S. aid to Pakistan should be suspended because Pakistan was not a reliable partner.

LyrArc Article Gist
During the election campaign Obama talked about sending at least 2 more combat brigades to Afghanistan. The Defense Department is already planning to send 20,000 additional troops in response to a request of General David McKiernan, top commander in Afghanistan,including 4 combat brigades and an aviation brigade with helicopters, increasing the American troop levels to 58,000, with an additional 30,000 NATO troops already there from other countries. The timeline for this is 12-18 months but with the escalating insurgent attacks in Afghanistan this will probably be done more quickly. Obama and some Democrats talked about Afghanistan as somehow being the good war and he vowed to defeat the Taliban and militants in Afghanistan. But Afghanistan is a different place and most military experts are suggesting that a good strategy will be needed, for example winning over the tribals and some of the militants, and not trying to win militarily. However with the deteriorating situation there the only way to win over tribals and militants may be to get the situation to where the NATO and US forces are in a strong situation. The two big handicaps in this are first history, where the terrain and rural distribution of the people make it difficult to exercize any control over the vast region of mountains and deserts. So throughout history no one has controlled this region and there is no history of centralized government, with different tribes controlling their regions. The other is the problem created by the corruption and lack of any popular support for the Karzai government, which is made worse by the involvement of its officials in the opium trade with opium growing booming in the southern part of Afghanistan. How does the US and NATO create an effective Afghan army and police under a state that does not enjoy any popular support. And yet the strategy that Gates. Petraeus and McKiernan are pursuing involves preparing the Afghan army and police for the task of controlling the vast mountainous region against a rural insurgency that knows its way in the mountains enjoys rural support because of the independent spirit of the Afghan people who find it easy to see the NATO forces as white foreigners in their country. The Afghan army is small for such a vast mountainous region, only 70,000 in a nation of 32 million people, and the police forces of 80,000 mostly corrupt and ineffectual. The present plan is to build the Afgan army to 134,000 still small for such a large region. The other problems stem from the Pushtun population in Pakistan that supports the rural insurgency in Afghanistan and the support of tribal people in the border areas of Pakistan. The picture tells the story, a small number of NATO soldiers in a remote ridge in Afghanistan. And the problems actually are across the whole of the far northern region of what was once British India, of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the Pakistan government is quite fragile, having an army that operates as a power center of its own with little accountability to the central government. And years of war during the previous military government of Pakistan under Zia Ul Haq, in which Zia with the support of the Reagan administration supported another rural insurgency in Afghanistan that drove the soviets out of Afghanistan, and the subsequent sponsorship of the Taliban movement by the Pakistan military in Afghanistan, has created a situation in Pakistan where militants now operate freely and with impunity in Pakistan itself, disregarding both the Pakistan military and the Pakistan elected government's power structures....

LyrArc Article Gist
Ford. will still make $8 billion to $11 billion this year even after losses of $3 billion in electric cars. By 2026 Ford says it will earn 8 to 9 percentage points in profit from EV's. Ford is basically investing in the EV industry now for the long run. It is also part of the effort to move away from fossil fuels. Government incentives and subsidies will help companies and buyers of vehicles make the transition to EV's to fight climate change.  Companies that have not invested in EV's such as Toyota risk falling behind in EV's at a time when climate change is a major priority for buyers and governments around the world. Toyota is moving to a new CEO who can better take up the challenge of EV's. Under the previous CEO Mr. Toyoda Toyota clung to a mistaken belief that hybrid cars were all that is needed to reduce use of fossil fuels. German, Chinese and US manufacturers are taking the lead in EV's and Japan has fallen behind.  WSJ has never favored government subsidies and is critical for this reason. Yet it is clear that in some situations such as fighting climate change, building infrastructure, and redesigning the supply chain, government has to take the lead. Eisenhower in the 1950's with a government led effort helped build the national highway system, the first in the world. Biden is making a similar effort on multiple fronts. The redesign of the supply chain comes after private industry without proper direction from the government over concentrated manufacturing in China with Japan as a supplier into China. Presidents Bush and Obama wasted time and resources better devoted to national priorities at home on wars in remote places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. President Biden wrapped up the war in Afghanistan and completely disengaged from an area that is of no constructive interest to America. Resources are now concentrated in the right way on real national priorities from manufacturing at home to fighting climate change, fighting the cost of living crisis and building better infrastructure for workers and families. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An overwhelming number of readers who commented on this article by October 27, 2009, were opposed to sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Looking at all comments in detail one finds that of the 64 readers commenting only a handful, about 8-9 supported sending these troops. Ninety percent of the comments to this editorial asking Obama to fight this war with conviction seriously questioned the wisdom of doing this. Many readers asked why aren't the Europeans putting thier lives at stake, and two asked how the Economist could with astraight face say that Britain's 500 troop increase was a welcome gesture. Readers questioned the assumptions and statements made by the Economist such as" letting the region "slip into amaelstrom of conflict," or "permanent cross-border instability," and "a terrible betrayal of the Afghan people, " in many of the comments. Readers seem conscious of the fact that its not a precipitate withdrawal that is being discussed, its a war for the long haul that it inevitably becomes as the US forces get deeper into the conflict in the mountains of Afghanistan. The discussion is not about the next 6 months but of next year and the year after that and the year after that. That is also what General Colin Powell advised President Obama. He asked Obama to think clearly about the clear goals of this mission. See the link to Powell. The question arises is whether the Economist sensitive to its readers thoughts on this subject, and it is how does it account for such an absolute majority of sensible readers having serious questions, doubts, and outright opposition to a deeper conflict in Afghanistan?...

LyrArc Article Gist
This report in the WSJ points out that president Trump's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan to reduce the number of the 14000 troops there by half is an attempt by Mr. Trump to bring the number below the 8400 troops there that president Obama left there at the end of this term. In this way president Trump could show that he has not increased the presence there as he prepares for reelection, for a war that is not popular, and which Mr. Trump sees as a waste of national treasure. The U.S. had at one time 100,000 troops there. But at no time was the U.S. close to ending the war or the insurgency. Since 2014, 45,000 Afghan forces were killed in the war. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Bob Herbert of the NYT after hearing that Obama told John Harwood in an interview with the Times recently that jobs is a lagging indicator, it comes last, and that the economy has turned the corner, is incredulous. The new numbers for September show 263,000 jobless. He asks does Obama get it? 15.1 million people are unemployed. ANd only 10-13 % of people polled by the Economic Policy Institute feel they have fared well. He is concerned that Obama is so focused on health care and Afghnistan that joblessness is not getting his attention the way it should be. And he is concerned that the infrastructure building that was supposed to set the new vision for America has been shelved under the new President.

LyrArc Article Gist
Inherent conflicts between views of Reidel, Biden and other policy advisors such Richard Holbrooke, all wary of Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan and General McChrystal -whose experience in tactical strategy was his strong point, not an overall perspective that took into account factors outside US control such as the people, their history, recent history, the terrain, lack of viable government, neighboring Pakistan- spill out into the open. Holbrooke, the special ambassador to the South Asian region has serious differences over Karzai with ambassador to Kabul, Eikenberrry, and with Jones, National Security Advisor. Eikenberry has his own differences with Karzai. See the group "Eikenberry Cables," which provides his cable reports from Afghanistan which talk about Karzai, the Afghan military, and the prospects there, in bleak terms. The same Eikenberry is shown here telling Jones that Holbrooke's chilled relations with Karzai are not helping, and Jones assuring Eikenberry that Holbrooke is on the way out. Followed by Secretary of State Clinton supporting Hilbrooke by talking to Obama. See also the group "April 2010 Biannual Defense Departmet Report on Afghanistan," which shows that of 92 districts surveyed none supported the Karzai government, somethig that must cause policy team members to pause and think....

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions readers raise about Lewis Sorley's account of wins in the latter part of the war in Vietnam. The idea presented that had the country stood behind the war effort it could have been turned around. Here President Johnson's own deputy national security advisor, Francis Bator, who is Professor emeritus at the Harvard Kennedy School, refutes this notion by saying that: "in Vietnam the goal was clear but unattainable by any means not grossly disproportionate to the American stake." He goes on to say that false inferences from that failure will not help President Obama with the hard question of deciding what feasible goals and means in Afghnistan and Pakistan and other places will minimize chances of amajor terrorist attack on the United States, whaterver its origating location. And doing this in a cost-effective way. The wording is designed to first focus on what is the minimum that America wants- safety from another attack. Second, to focus on doing this in a cost-effective way. At some point resources added become disproportionate to the American stake in Afghanistan. An infantryman in the Vietnam war describes a people in villages that he was supposed to protect who would not even alert American soldiers of bombs when they knew exactly where they were placed. People in villages who were basically indifferent to the central government in South Vietnam. Are the Afghan people any different? See the links to this....

LyrArc Article Gist
Karzai a new man, the Karzai government which Gates has called a "crime syndicate" changing its face in an astonishing aboutface. Pakistan ending its obsession with India, with no change on either side Pakistan or India for a joint focus on economic development in South Asia, and no deep transformation of America's role in South Asia. The things Friedman wishes for so that the Obama presidency does not in his words sink in Afghanistan are asking for things that just don't happen with some sort of troop surge.

LyrArc Article Gist
Among the influential voices raised against the war in Afghanistan are former secretary of State Colin Powell and Senators John Kerry and Reed. Powell met privately with the President. Others skeptical that more troops will make adifference, are Vice President Biden, Rahm Emmanuel, and General James L. Jones. Clinton and Holbooke are on the other side of this debate. The first decision to add 21,000 troops to bring force level to 68000 was made hurriedly within weeks of Obama coming to offiCE. Powell's advice to Obama is the most significant because of his long experience. "The question the President has to answer is, What will more troops do? You have to not just add troops . You need aclear definition of the mission." The ideas revolve along the really crucial question of will more troops make a difference?

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial describes the errors of the Obama administration in its policies for Syria and Iraq. The failure to maintain a troop presence in Iraq, a premature withdrawal which has led to the fall of Mosul to Islamic extremist ISIS. WSJ describes the significant improvement in Iraq at the time the Obama administration assumed office, and the deterioration since with withdrawal and increasing sectarianism. Obama administration policies and failure to actively support moderates of the Free Syrian Army in Syria have led to the return to extremism and terrorist control of large parts of Syria and Iraq. It has also led to worsening of relations with allies Saudis and Turkey who called for a more active U.S. support of moderates in Syria. In the process what was supposed to be an Arab Spring has turned into a return of extremism and dampening of the hopes of the people in the Middle East for economic progress. After a trillion dollars spent in Afghanistan and Iraq and large sacrifices by the military letting the situation unravel in this manner is incomprehensible....